If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Mass Murder @ Elementary School

What is a hunting rifle? (Meaning, what distinguishes it from any other rifle?)

How much do you know about hunting, to include the process, tools, laws, etc.

Well first, in the state of California, from the attorney general's office, full automatic weapons make a very small percentage of the crimes. Handguns take up the majority. http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pd..._Report_09.pdf and http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pd..._Report_10.pdf
But you're simply talking about crime in general. If you talk about Mass Shootings specifically, fully automatic weapons have been used in a good number of them. Now in this case only semi-automatic weapons were used. Doesn't change the fact that 20 innocent children lost their lives to the same .223 round that I fired while in the U.S. Air Force. Same thing with that knucklehead in Clackamas, stealing an AR-15 type/based weapon to shoot up the place. Thankfully his friend that he stole from was an idiot, and improper care led to a jamming quickly.

Second, What typically designates a rifle as a hunting rifle and an assault rifle is the purpose for which they were manufactured. If you want to get down to bare bones, the some of the first assault rifles were hunting rifles. But what I feel truly separates them is the fact that assault rifles are horrible for hunting. Even in semi-automatic mode/format. They aren't made to shoot nearly as far as the hunting rifles. Sniper rifles on the other hand are another story. They literally are hunting rifles, just for hunting down humans. On average a typical hunting rifle holds 5 rounds max, meanwhile assault rifles come with 15, 30, and even 40 round clips. Some companies even make 100 or 200 round clips for them.

Third, I know quite a bit for not actually being a hunter or having hunted before. I know a lot of hunters and I talk to them about it all the time. Now I'm not so "OMG! Don't hunt. Don't kill animals" type person. I believe that if you're hunting, you should only kill what you're gonna eat or be able to eat. In survival circumstances I'll hunt myself. Being the type of person I am, I'll go for the small game with traps and have a gun as my backup. I can tell you right now, you don't use fully automatic rifles for hunting. Assault rifles are rubbish for hunting too. Why? Because they lack any serious range, accuracy becomes rubbish at max range of the weapon, and in the case of full auto you end up shooting the animal so much you ruin any meat you'd get off of it because it would have so many holes in it. Oh and big game? Big game requires big rounds. You're not killing a bear with a .223 or the NATO 5.56. Not even the 7.62 would help you. You'd need a .30-06, .300, .308, or higher. Hell a .223 and/or a NATO 5.56 wouldn't take down a white tail deer with one round unless you nailed them directly in the skull. Those rounds were made to maim not kill. Thinking it's better to maim a guy and have his buddy(ies) help take him off the battle field, than simply just kill one or two guys.

What else you got, because my stance hasn't been modified at all. Though judging by your questions, you don't even understand my stance at all.

Re: Mass Murder @ Elementary School

Originally Posted by Forgotten Show

People have had no problems overcoming the hurdle of illegally acquiring weapons throughout the world and throughout history. In most of Central and South America, ownership of weapons of calibers used by the government are illegal, yet they're the most commonly owned weapons by civilians. In Australia earlier this year, a country which very strictly regulates sales and possession of firearms, Sydney saw a rash of shootings that police have yet to really solve or address. Finland's had 4 high-profile shootings in the last 5 years and has only slightly more permissive laws than Australia. Uganda has very strict gun laws and saw two high-profile shootings in the same year in the 90s.

What I said stands: strict gun control does not stop shootings, spree or otherwise. It's doubtful that it even makes it harder; nations with fairly low legal firearms ownership still see weapons illegally acquired/imported to use in crime. The only way to directly address these mass killings is to address the root causes, which includes not glorifying the events as the media does. This should not be an issue of gun control, but rather of addressing fairly serious social problems.

"Its doubtful that it even makes it harder". So there is no statistics on that? You can bring up all the statistics you want how countries with strict gun control still has illegal guns running loose. But it still doesnt remove my belief that it will prevent at least some people from doing it and therefore preventing even more shooting sprees. And like I said, I already agreed on the deeper causes that also needs to be addressed.

Re: Mass Murder @ Elementary School

Originally Posted by Mizukoi Kurumi

@Forgotten Show , what about running by using smoke bombs or stun grenades? As the saying goes, &quot;There is always a better way&quot;, especially one that won't get anyone critically injured or dead.

I'm... assuming you've never used either of these devices. No, they are no good at all in personal defense. Smoke grenades can't put out smoke fast enough, and if they could blind the assaulted as well as the assailant(s). Stun grenades incapacitate those nearby, regardless of who they are. They're arguably more dangerous to someone being assaulted than a Taser or chemical spray.

Originally Posted by DeathBlade/13.666

Well first, in the state of California, from the attorney general's office, full automatic weapons make a very small percentage of the crimes. Handguns take up the majority. http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pd..._Report_09.pdf and http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pd..._Report_10.pdf
But you're simply talking about crime in general. If you talk about Mass Shootings specifically, fully automatic weapons have been used in a good number of them. Now in this case only semi-automatic weapons were used. Doesn't change the fact that 20 innocent children lost their lives to the same .223 round that I fired while in the U.S. Air Force. Same thing with that knucklehead in Clackamas, stealing an AR-15 type/based weapon to shoot up the place. Thankfully his friend that he stole from was an idiot, and improper care led to a jamming quickly.

Yes, I was asking about crime in general. To date, not one spree shooting has been committed with an automatic weapon. Not one. They account for an exceptionally low percentage of crimes committed with firearms in general; I don't think legally-owned automatic firearms have been used in more than a handful of crimes throughout US history. Legally-owned automatic firearms are not a crime problem and do not contribute to crime. Bolt action rifles have been used in more high-profile shootings than automatic rifles.

Second, What typically designates a rifle as a hunting rifle and an assault rifle is the purpose for which they were manufactured. If you want to get down to bare bones, the some of the first assault rifles were hunting rifles. But what I feel truly separates them is the fact that assault rifles are horrible for hunting.

Izhmash, Norinco, Saiga (and by extension Arsenal), and other manufacturers all offer AKs for hunting and market to hunters. Ballistically the 7.62x39 is the same as the classic 30-30, only in a more dependable weapon that's just as accurate. Lever action rifles are generally not that accurate in spite of being single-shot designs; they average 2-5 MOA at 100m. AKs by the aforementioned companies are generally within this range as well, or better if you shop from some of the boutique makers. Poor ammo usually accounts for the reputation of less-than-adequately accurate performance from an AK, and most of the usual manufacturers of hunting ammunition make hunting ammunition for 7.62x39 or sell components to reload your own ammunition.

DPMS, Remington, Ruger, and other manufacturers make ARs for hunting and market them to hunters with great success. This is a good article for you. The average AR is on par with the average Remington 700 or Winchester model 70 (aka, the iconic 'hunting rifles' in the US). The 5.56x45 is good on hog and coyote (not many states allow you hunt deer with it, but some do). It comes in a wide variety of calibers, too; 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, and 300 Blackout are excellent commercial deer cartridges, as is the 7.62x40 WT (wildcat that only recently became commercial).

The effective hunting range of these calibers for both AR and AK patterned rifles ranges from within 150m to over 500m, depending on the round of choice. The vast majority of hunting occurs within 100m. Even hunting out on the plains, you can get .260, 7mm-08, or .308 Winchester chambered AR-10s that keep pace with bolt action rifles out to 800m and further. Most AR magazine manufacturers also make 5 and 10 round magazines. Tapco and ProMag, while awful, do make polymer 5 round AK magazines; there are a couple Bulgarian steel 5-round mags but they're harder to get (the polymer ones are that bad). I'm pretty sure there are surplus 10-round steel AK mags, and I know for a fact there are 20 rounders (I have them).

There is no difference whatsoever between a hunting rifle and any other rifle.

Third, I know quite a bit for not actually being a hunter or having hunted before. I know a lot of hunters and I talk to them about it all the time. Now I'm not so &quot;OMG! Don't hunt. Don't kill animals&quot; type person. I believe that if you're hunting, you should only kill what you're gonna eat or be able to eat. In survival circumstances I'll hunt myself. Being the type of person I am, I'll go for the small game with traps and have a gun as my backup. I can tell you right now, you don't use fully automatic rifles for hunting. Assault rifles are rubbish for hunting too. Why? Because they lack any serious range, accuracy becomes rubbish at max range of the weapon, and in the case of full auto you end up shooting the animal so much you ruin any meat you'd get off of it because it would have so many holes in it. Oh and big game? Big game requires big rounds. You're not killing a bear with a .223 or the NATO 5.56. Not even the 7.62 would help you. You'd need a .30-06, .300, .308, or higher. Hell a .223 and/or a NATO 5.56 wouldn't take down a white tail deer with one round unless you nailed them directly in the skull. Those rounds were made to maim not kill. Thinking it's better to maim a guy and have his buddy(ies) help take him off the battle field, than simply just kill one or two guys.

Then from a hunter, who hunts with the above weapons no less, to a non-hunter, let me pass on some information. The .308 Winchester can hunt everything in North America. It is the most common thirty-caliber cartridge in North America, too. There are at least 9 different commercial manufacturers making .308-chambered &quot;assault weapons&quot;: Armalite, Colt, DPMS, FN Herstal, Knight's Armament, Noveske, Remington, Rock River Arms, Ruger. With no modifications whatsoever, these companies make firearms that are more than adequate to hunt throughout the North American continent. Adding boutique manufacturers who make custom rifles adds both to the number of manufacturers and the available calibers. Getting 5 round magazines for .308 ARs is easy, by the way.

If we stick with their 'stock' calibers, the .223 has been hunting game since it became commercially available in the 60s-70s. As I've said before, coyote and hog are well-within the performance envelope of the cartridge, as are smaller white-tail; Midwest deer and smaller antelope are too, but I'm big on the whole 'ethical hunting' thing and I'm not confident in my shooting enough to drop a larger animal cleanly. Saying it can't be done, though...

The 7.62x39, as I've said, performs essentially the same as a 30-30. Whatever you can hunt with a 30-30, you can hunt with a 7.62x39. This namely falls into deer and hog, but black bear on the east coast are also doable. It can manage some larger bear out west and north, but I would not try it myself. Elk is very likely out of the question for normal use of either .223 or 7.62x39 (although if you were desperate and needed food, I suppose nothing is off-limits).

(And no, that 'made to wound not kill' thing about the 5.56x45 is a myth. The round was developed using the SCHV [small-caliber, high velocity] concept of creating a larger wound cavity through a higher speed projectile that tumbles or fragments to make the permanent wound cavity larger; it was designed to kill just as much as any other caliber, but do so in a smaller and lighter package so more of it can be carried.)

What else you got, because my stance hasn't been modified at all. Though judging by your questions, you don't even understand my stance at all.

Near as I can tell, your stance is only suggested at here. By and large I agree and have said as much; guns are not the problem here. However, you then started following that up with posts like this, where you're offering your opinion based on misinformation. The intent of my responses is to correct that misinformation; I'd love nothing more than to have a serious conversation about the actual root causes of criminal violence and violence in general, but we won't get to that point until we clear up the extreme misinformation on which people base, or try to base, public policy. I've nothing against you personally Death, but based on what you've stated here I'd no sooner accept you making gun policy than I would me making import/export policy: neither you or I know enough about the respective subjects to make good policy. Thing is, I can help you with the crime facts part. Can you help with the import/export stats part?

Krav Maga?

Ever used it before? It's no magic-pill, despite how it's marketed. In any case, most of it still relies on physical strength and dexterity, same as every other martial art; assuming those healthy enough to learn it actually could use it for their defense, it does nothing for the young, the old, the wheelchair-bound, the sick, etc. And it still sucks vs multiple assailants, same as every other martial art.

Originally Posted by mayushii

&quot;Its doubtful that it even makes it harder&quot;. So there is no statistics on that? You can bring up all the statistics you want how countries with strict gun control still has illegal guns running loose. But it still doesnt remove my belief that it will prevent at least some people from doing it and therefore preventing even more shooting sprees. And like I said, I already agreed on the deeper causes that also needs to be addressed.

You omit the reason why I said doubtful: "It's doubtful that it even makes it harder; nations with fairly low legal firearms ownership still see weapons illegally acquired/imported to use in crime." I'm glad we can agree that the deeper causes of crime need to be addressed; my argument (fairly well-supported, I think) is that gun control doesn't really change much at all in terms of violence committed; if strict gun policy is the metaphorical band-aid, it's being put on a burn victim. Those deeper causes are the issues that need to be discussed and worked through.

Re: Mass Murder @ Elementary School

Originally Posted by Forgotten Show

Yes, I was asking about crime in general. To date, not one spree shooting has been committed with an automatic weapon. Not one. They account for an exceptionally low percentage of crimes committed with firearms in general; I don't think legally-owned automatic firearms have been used in more than a handful of crimes throughout US history. Legally-owned automatic firearms are not a crime problem and do not contribute to crime. Bolt action rifles have been used in more high-profile shootings than automatic rifles.

Izhmash, Norinco, Saiga (and by extension Arsenal), and other manufacturers all offer AKs for hunting and market to hunters. Ballistically the 7.62x39 is the same as the classic 30-30, only in a more dependable weapon that's just as accurate. Lever action rifles are generally not that accurate in spite of being single-shot designs; they average 2-5 MOA at 100m. AKs by the aforementioned companies are generally within this range as well, or better if you shop from some of the boutique makers. Poor ammo usually accounts for the reputation of less-than-adequately accurate performance from an AK, and most of the usual manufacturers of hunting ammunition make hunting ammunition for 7.62x39 or sell components to reload your own ammunition.

DPMS, Remington, Ruger, and other manufacturers make ARs for hunting and market them to hunters with great success. This is a good article for you. The average AR is on par with the average Remington 700 or Winchester model 70 (aka, the iconic 'hunting rifles' in the US). The 5.56x45 is good on hog and coyote (not many states allow you hunt deer with it, but some do). It comes in a wide variety of calibers, too; 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, and 300 Blackout are excellent commercial deer cartridges, as is the 7.62x40 WT (wildcat that only recently became commercial).

The effective hunting range of these calibers for both AR and AK patterned rifles ranges from within 150m to over 500m, depending on the round of choice. The vast majority of hunting occurs within 100m. Even hunting out on the plains, you can get .260, 7mm-08, or .308 Winchester chambered AR-10s that keep pace with bolt action rifles out to 800m and further. Most AR magazine manufacturers also make 5 and 10 round magazines. Tapco and ProMag, while awful, do make polymer 5 round AK magazines; there are a couple Bulgarian steel 5-round mags but they're harder to get (the polymer ones are that bad). I'm pretty sure there are surplus 10-round steel AK mags, and I know for a fact there are 20 rounders (I have them).

There is no difference whatsoever between a hunting rifle and any other rifle.

Fair enough, I'll admit I'm mistaken to that point. Other than the fact that the AR and AK style rifles can be modified to full auto easily, and getting the conversion parts/kits aren't hard at all. Now I'm sure you'll sit there and say that it can be done with any gun, and I'm sure your right. But these are readily available.

Then from a hunter, who hunts with the above weapons no less, to a non-hunter, let me pass on some information. The .308 Winchester can hunt everything in North America. It is the most common thirty-caliber cartridge in North America, too. There are at least 9 different commercial manufacturers making .308-chambered &quot;assault weapons&quot;: Armalite, Colt, DPMS, FN Herstal, Knight's Armament, Noveske, Remington, Rock River Arms, Ruger. With no modifications whatsoever, these companies make firearms that are more than adequate to hunt throughout the North American continent. Adding boutique manufacturers who make custom rifles adds both to the number of manufacturers and the available calibers. Getting 5 round magazines for .308 ARs is easy, by the way.

If we stick with their 'stock' calibers, the .223 has been hunting game since it became commercially available in the 60s-70s. As I've said before, coyote and hog are well-within the performance envelope of the cartridge, as are smaller white-tail; Midwest deer and smaller antelope are too, but I'm big on the whole 'ethical hunting' thing and I'm not confident in my shooting enough to drop a larger animal cleanly. Saying it can't be done, though...

Yea and I've seen two guys take down a full grown grizzly after 50-60 rounds from their handguns. It's not impossible, just highly impractical when applied to other scenarios (including similar ones).

The 7.62x39, as I've said, performs essentially the same as a 30-30. Whatever you can hunt with a 30-30, you can hunt with a 7.62x39. This namely falls into deer and hog, but black bear on the east coast are also doable. It can manage some larger bear out west and north, but I would not try it myself. Elk is very likely out of the question for normal use of either .223 or 7.62x39 (although if you were desperate and needed food, I suppose nothing is off-limits).

(And no, that 'made to wound not kill' thing about the 5.56x45 is a myth. The round was developed using the SCHV [small-caliber, high velocity] concept of creating a larger wound cavity through a higher speed projectile that tumbles or fragments to make the permanent wound cavity larger; it was designed to kill just as much as any other caliber, but do so in a smaller and lighter package so more of it can be carried.)

Again, I admit I was mistaken. And as for the Myth. Myth or not, it's still heavily propagated by even the military. I just like it because the small caliber round will rattle in the skulls (provided it isn't pushed through by other forces).

Near as I can tell, your stance is only suggested at here. By and large I agree and have said as much; guns are not the problem here. However, you then started following that up with posts like this, where you're offering your opinion based on misinformation. The intent of my responses is to correct that misinformation; I'd love nothing more than to have a serious conversation about the actual root causes of criminal violence and violence in general, but we won't get to that point until we clear up the extreme misinformation on which people base, or try to base, public policy. I've nothing against you personally Death, but based on what you've stated here I'd no sooner accept you making gun policy than I would me making import/export policy: neither you or I know enough about the respective subjects to make good policy. Thing is, I can help you with the crime facts part. Can you help with the import/export stats part?

It may seem misleading until you put it into context. You're not gonna hunt a deer with this...
Granted you're right there was misinformation being thrown out and I thank you for correcting it. And I couldn't generalized all assault rifles like that. Frankly I was just caught in the moment and not trying to come up with some policy. As for imports and exports of guns, this might help. http://www.atf.gov/publications/fire...merce-2011.pdf

Ever used it before? It's no magic-pill, despite how it's marketed. In any case, most of it still relies on physical strength and dexterity, same as every other martial art; assuming those healthy enough to learn it actually could use it for their defense, it does nothing for the young, the old, the wheelchair-bound, the sick, etc. And it still sucks vs multiple assailants, same as every other martial art.

I was just being silly, but there are many martial arts out there. My uncle's very heavy into them. Granted the majority of the martial arts in the U.S. today are mere watered down crap for kids. Granted it's different for those that are sick and/or disabled. But the multiple assailants part is something that can and has been dealt with, provided you're not learning the watered down crap.

Last edited by DeathBlade/13.666; 12-18-2012 at 03:45 PM.

Good ol' Dogs never Die, they just keepin on livin' till their time comes.

Based on the psycologists they've been bringing on it sounds like the answer is pretty well known, and people have been documented as doing it for thousands of years.

They want to be famous, even if it is as a horrible and evil monster.

They were showing some of the mug shots of other mass killers from the past years and it enrages me that a bunch of them were smirking. I'm mad at society for giving these horrible people exactly what they wanted. Not only does it give them great satisfaction both afterwards and before while imagining all their coverage, but it encourages the next sociopath who would much rather be a famous monster than an unknown loser.

I think there should be some public outcry against news stations showing their faces, using their names, talking about how hard they had it, discussing their manifestos and posts, or reading their crappy poetry.

Originally Posted by Neukifly

That may be true, but the gun remains as one the most effective weapons designed to deal death in a quick and precise manner, and like @Eris said, anyone can use a gun. The point is, not allowing any citezen to possess a gun, legally or otherwise would minimise incidents such as this in the first place.

It pains me to say this, but in this day and age, the only way to ensure real protection of children on school premises is through millitary intervention, and so that essentially, innappropriate weapons are not allowed anywhere near school premises to begin with. Ideally, it'd be nice to see schools managing themselves without the presence of millitary personell at all (i.e. so that they look more like schools and less like detention camps); but the alternative is to risk more incidents like this. Of course, the obviousness as to what should be done to avoid mass school killings on this scale doesn't make it any easier to implement; ultimately the question is whether American taxpayers are prepared to pay more to their governent for the necessary protection of their children.

The alternative is for the surrounding society to look deep within itself and ask, "Why are these things happening?". Incidents like this are, however you look at it, a reflection on the surrounding society, and while it can't be held accountable for the killer's actions, it may well be partly responsible for the path he took in his life. Basically, I'm saying that one thing leads to another--actions are not born out of thin air.

In any case, the notion that guns are necessary to protect people is certainly not reflected in the US's crime statistics. There are other countries in the world that permit around the same standards of living and with them it's illegal for citezens (i.e. civillians) to possess firearms; (Japan and Austrailia to name but a few); yet most (if not all) do not have anywhere near as alarming crime statistics. In the end the difference boils down to social development.

As much as I wish the incident had not happened, I'm not at all surprised that it did--in fact I'd almost go so far as to say that it was enevitable. School killings (at least on this scale) seem to be a relatively recent phenomenon; to me this would suggest that something has gone fundamentally wrong with--and I'm going to say it because it has to said--western society as a whole.

Originally Posted by Jasanime

Why does a mother need to own guns? Wait... let me guess... self-defence right? Lot of good it did her. I don't understand needing guns to protect yourself, if everyone in the country DIDN'T OWN A GUN, there wouldn't be much need for protection. We have home invasions and break-ins here, but knowing the criminals and crazies very likely do not have a gun makes me feel quite safe.

Originally Posted by mayushii

. But it still doesnt remove my belief that it will prevent at least some people from doing it and therefore preventing even more shooting sprees. And like I said, I already agreed on the deeper causes that also needs to be addressed.

I could get into the details, and might if people are interested in discussing them. And these events are certainly horrific and tragic.

However even if, for the sake of argument, one accepts that some sufficiently strict firearm laws will remove the hundreds of million of firearms in the country, that nothing else could significantly reduce the incidence of such events, that nothing better could be done to protect the kids, and that by forcing these people to use melee weapons, vehicle, poisons, bombs or gas that the number of average dead per incident would be lower than with guns, you're still talking about denying the rights of hundreds of millions of Americans for a very rare sort of incident.

By that standard most sports should be banned for starters, and I could go on to other examples but I think you get the idea.

On a slightly different note, I think there are a number of unfortunate consequences of how strongly people react to sensational and terrifying events. That's why even a liberal congress and president feel they have to bomb, invade, torture, assasinate, wiretap, spy, get our servicemen killed, and irradiate your junk when you want to get on an airplane.

I think it goes too far. And I think at the least it draws away funding from the tens of thousands of kids who have the misfortune to die every year in ways that are insufficiently entertaining to merit the same degree of coverage and support.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by DeathBlade/13.666

.

FYI deathblade, it seems trying to mention your name causes the forum to glitch

The NFA can only be part of it, and how large or small a part is unknown. That I can find, exactly two shooting crimes have been committed between 1934 and today using legally-owned automatic weapons (one of those was by a police officer). We know, and statistics support, that legal machine gun owners are are not even remotely criminally-inclined. There are about a quarter million machine guns in the United States, half owned by civilians and the other half by law enforcement. As the ATF so kindly demonstrated to us this last administration, it's not terribly hard to import machine guns (illegally), yet criminals so rarely ever have them, much less use them.

To me it reads that the NFA only complicated the process of legally owning machine guns as opposed to prevent bad people from getting them.

And yes, many semi-automatic rifles can be made full automatic. Getting the conversion parts/kits is not easy, though, despite what you think: the people who sell them are very conscious of the ATF, and these kits do not sell for less than several thousand dollars at minimum (due to the GCA, diminishing supply, and high demand). Acquiring these pieces illegally is also not easy - criminals are not a particularly smart bunch and rarely know what pieces are needed to make the trigger assembly for an automatic weapon. The number of illegally converted machine guns is exceptionally low.

It may seem misleading until you put it into context. You're not gonna hunt a deer with this...

Crew served weapons would make bad hunting weapons, yes. They're not accurate (not designed for precision), they're cumbersome (being crew-served and all), and they're impractical. Combat is really the only practical use for these weapons.

I have no use for one, personally, but I also have no problems with someone owning one, full-auto or not. Machine guns, legal and illegal, are not a crime problem. Mostly the same logic as the .50 cal and larger rifles (although at least these can be used in very long-range competitions).

I was just being silly, but there are many martial arts out there. My uncle's very heavy into them. Granted the majority of the martial arts in the U.S. today are mere watered down crap for kids. Granted it's different for those that are sick and/or disabled. But the multiple assailants part is something that can and has been dealt with, provided you're not learning the watered down crap.

Having been jumped, seeing other people get jumped, and will be again in training early next year, my experience is slightly different. Fighting multiple people sucks, and I'm a pretty healthy/fit/young-ish guy. A smaller or weaker person, the sick/infirm/etc...

Off-Topic Edit: When did formatting posts here become so difficult? VB is starting to remind me of Huddler.

Re: Mass Murder @ Elementary School

Originally Posted by Forgotten Show

The NFA can only be part of it, and how large or small a part is unknown. That I can find, exactly two shooting crimes have been committed between 1934 and today using legally-owned automatic weapons (one of those was by a police officer). We know, and statistics support, that legal machine gun owners are are not even remotely criminally-inclined. There are about a quarter million machine guns in the United States, half owned by civilians and the other half by law enforcement. As the ATF so kindly demonstrated to us this last administration, it's not terribly hard to import machine guns (illegally), yet criminals so rarely ever have them, much less use them.

To me it reads that the NFA only complicated the process of legally owning machine guns as opposed to prevent bad people from getting them.

And yes, many semi-automatic rifles can be made full automatic. Getting the conversion parts/kits is not easy, though, despite what you think: the people who sell them are very conscious of the ATF, and these kits do not sell for less than several thousand dollars at minimum (due to the GCA, diminishing supply, and high demand). Acquiring these pieces illegally is also not easy - criminals are not a particularly smart bunch and rarely know what pieces are needed to make the trigger assembly for an automatic weapon. The number of illegally converted machine guns is exceptionally low.

It's not has hard as you think. Minimal gunsmithing is required to make the conversions. But certainly you can agree that ease of access and/or lack of there of has played at least some role in many of these shootings. The real question is how much and whether the affect was positive or negative.

Crew served weapons would make bad hunting weapons, yes. They're not accurate (not designed for precision), they're cumbersome (being crew-served and all), and they're impractical. Combat is really the only practical use for these weapons.

I have no use for one, personally, but I also have no problems with someone owning one, full-auto or not. Machine guns, legal and illegal, are not a crime problem. Mostly the same logic as the .50 cal and larger rifles (although at least these can be used in very long-range competitions).

At least we're in an agreement on their use in hunting, but in situation for a mass shooting with experience and/or practice and preparation it could be extremely useful and deadly. Especially with them becoming less and less needing on an actual crew. M249, M240, and the M60 can pretty much be operated by one person.

Having been jumped, seeing other people get jumped, and will be again in training early next year, my experience is slightly different. Fighting multiple people sucks, and I'm a pretty healthy/fit/young-ish guy. A smaller or weaker person, the sick/infirm/etc...

True it's never easy to fight multiple people, especially when jumped on in an surprise. But still there's other things one can do. Tazers, knives, pepper spray are all viable options. Though proper training is the only thing to make such things practical.

Off-Topic Edit: When did formatting posts here become so difficult? VB is starting to remind me of Huddler.

Well you can bring it up in the Site Issues section if it's being too much of a pain. I dunno if it'll help but it's worth a shot.

Last edited by DeathBlade/13.666; 12-20-2012 at 04:53 PM.

Good ol' Dogs never Die, they just keepin on livin' till their time comes.

Re: Mass Murder @ Elementary School

Originally Posted by DeathBlade/13.666

So being able to see your family and have a TV in the common area to watch, along with having the option of being productive with your sentence equates to a prison being like a "5-Star Hotel". Gotcha. And here I thought that was just normal to keep people from going insane from shear boredom and allow those whom wish to redeem themselves somehow (whether through sorrow or just to have the chance to get out early), provided they meet certain requirements, was something benefitting the government and the punished criminal.

I promise you jail isn't that great even with all though things. Hell most of that you have to earn your right to utilize them. But hey, why don't you go to jail and prove to me that I'm wrong. While you're at it, why not ask the rest of the inmates how they feel about their perks in jail.

Prison is supposed to be a place that makes you want to leave and never come back. "If you give a stray some food, they keep coming back",give a prisoner some freedom he never wants to leave.

You find life unfair? Try being and egg. You only get laid once, you only get eaten once, it takes four minutes to get hard, but only two to get soft, you share a box with eleven other guys, but what's worse was the only chick to sit on you is your mom!

Re: Mass Murder @ Elementary School

I do believe in all my years, I've never heard nor seen someone outside of a television show willingly want to go back to prison. Care to prove me wrong?

The many criminals that do crimes and end up going back to serve more time.

You find life unfair? Try being and egg. You only get laid once, you only get eaten once, it takes four minutes to get hard, but only two to get soft, you share a box with eleven other guys, but what's worse was the only chick to sit on you is your mom!

Re: Mass Murder @ Elementary School

Originally Posted by ~Fallen~Angel~

The many criminals that do crimes and end up going back to serve more time.

Uh yea, they go back because they were caught and found guilty of a crime. They don't intentionally commit a crime to simply go to jail. I mean seriously who wakes up in the morning and says, "You know, I feel like going to jail today. What crime will get me there the fastest?"

Good ol' Dogs never Die, they just keepin on livin' till their time comes.

Re: Mass Murder @ Elementary School

Originally Posted by DeathBlade/13.666

True, but there's still better places then jail for them to go to, and they usually go there.

Most places don't even help if you don't meet the criteria (ie being straight or recently losing a job), then there are places that will only give you help for a limited time then you're on your own. It's like when a person panhandles, if they are receiving money even if they don't work then they see no reason to work like how a prisoner can receive 3 square meals a day, get a tv in their cell, and be able to hang out with their friends and family like normal almost every week or month or etc, then why would they want to leave? They still get exercise and necessities plus they don't even have to worry about bills and most of the problems we face out here.

You find life unfair? Try being and egg. You only get laid once, you only get eaten once, it takes four minutes to get hard, but only two to get soft, you share a box with eleven other guys, but what's worse was the only chick to sit on you is your mom!

Re: Mass Murder @ Elementary School

Originally Posted by ~Fallen~Angel~

Most places don't even help if you don't meet the criteria (ie being straight or recently losing a job), then there are places that will only give you help for a limited time then you're on your own. It's like when a person panhandles, if they are receiving money even if they don't work then they see no reason to work like how a prisoner can receive 3 square meals a day, get a tv in their cell, and be able to hang out with their friends and family like normal almost every week or month or etc, then why would they want to leave? They still get exercise and necessities plus they don't even have to worry about bills and most of the problems we face out here.

Again, you're full of crap in thinking that prison is the best place to be. And even more full of crap thinking that panhandling nets that much profit too. Lemme guess, you'll also want to remove people from welfare, because they're obviously using it to support their non-working livelihood or lazy work ethic. Yet you have absolutely no facts, no proof, and nothing more than sheer ignorant rhetoric to spout from your nonsensical brain.

Good ol' Dogs never Die, they just keepin on livin' till their time comes.

Re: Mass Murder @ Elementary School

Originally Posted by Jeroen Mathon

In holland weapons are forbidden and we also have almost no incidents involving semi automatic rifles.
Why wont america follow our example?

Mainly because you have to take into account that we'd have to collect 300 million guns or more, ammo for all that, and violate our 2nd amendment rights. On top of all the constitutional and logistical problems, you also have to face the trouble of actually getting them from their owners. There's a reason why the ATF avoids the Deep South as much as possible.

Good ol' Dogs never Die, they just keepin on livin' till their time comes.

Re: Mass Murder @ Elementary School

Originally Posted by ~Fallen~Angel~

Most places don't even help if you don't meet the criteria (ie being straight or recently losing a job), then there are places that will only give you help for a limited time then you're on your own. It's like when a person panhandles, if they are receiving money even if they don't work then they see no reason to work like how a prisoner can receive 3 square meals a day, get a tv in their cell, and be able to hang out with their friends and family like normal almost every week or month or etc, then why would they want to leave? They still get exercise and necessities plus they don't even have to worry about bills and most of the problems we face out here.